Right to privacy encompasses marital confidentiality, preventing access to spouse's private communications without valid justification or specific claims.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.6.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Case No. 423 of 2023, whereby the application moved by the petitioner seeking a direction to produce call detail records of the cellphone of his wife has been rejected.

2. The facts of the present case are that the parties were married off on 4.7.2022 according to the Hindu rites and rituals at village Sankara, Police Station Somni, Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon. The petitioner/husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is alleged that the respondent/wife visited her parents' house 15 days after the marriage and soon thereafter her behaviour changed drastically. It is further pleaded that the respondent misbehaved with the petitioner’s mother and brother. It is stated that during the month of September and October, the respondent again went to her parental house and, when the petitioner approached her, she directly refused to accompany him.

3. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 7.10.2002. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 14.10.2022 before the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon and also instituted proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner’s mother, father and brother. A complaint was also lodged by the respondent before Mahila Thana, Rajnandgaon against her in-laws. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty. The respondent/wife filed her reply and denied the averments made in the divorce petition. The petitioner moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg on 24.1.2024 making a request to provide call detail records (CDR) of the respondent’s mobile number on the ground that the petitioner doubted her character. A similar application was moved on 30.11.2023. Thereafter, on 12.10.2023, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Family Court seeking a direction to the authorities to provide the respondent’s call detail records. The respondent filed a reply denying the allegations made in the said application. In the written arguments, the petitioner stated that the respondent used to talk to her brother-in-law (jija) for long hours. It was also alleged that there might be an illicit relationship between the respondent and her brother-in-law, and therefore, the call detail records are necessary for the adjudication of the case. Learned Family Court vide order dated 27.6.2024, rejected the said application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there were frequent phone calls between the respondent and her brother-in-law, suggesting a possible illicit relationship. He would further submit that to substantiate the allegation of adultery, the production of call detail records is essential. He would also submit that the application was initially moved before the police authorities but no action was taken therefore a subsequent application was moved before the learned Family Court and the same has been rejected without assigning sufficient reasons. He would pray that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court may be set aside and the application may be allowed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the documents present on the record.

6. A perusal of the divorce petition filed by the petitioner would show that it has been filed solely on the ground of c